To argue within the limits of the Constitution is to destroy your own case, because without democracy the federal government will simply deny your claims by citing 1861 as the year that the federal government became the final judge of the Constitution i.e. a nation. And that is false as this is article is as well. The secession of the southern states beginning in 1861 was not treason, since not one person– even Jefferson Davis– was found guilty of treason for seceding. They were not pardoned, they were simply
ACQUITTED, since there was no law against it– and the federal government didn’t want this fact coming to light.
The Constitution cannot outlaw secession, since many states are OLDER than the Constitution– and they don’t anywhere SURRENDER their sovereignty in the Constitution (though legal illiterates will always spuriously construe such in every clause… to their own discredit). Even the staunchest Lincoln-supporters, no longer deny that each state was originally a sovereign nation unto itself: rather, they now ADMIT it, but claim that the CONSTITUTION ended that status. As Yale Law professor, Akhil Reed Amar notes in his David C. Bauer lecture:

“In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence.”

So here he ADMITS that the states were individually sovereign prior to the Constitution; but of course the rest is nonsense, since sovereign nations CANNOT relinquish sovereignty by inference, being ABSOLUTE– and thus it cannot be relinquished by inference, or forfeited by default–contrary to Akhil Reed Amar’s silly claim above (i.e. that “this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution”).
On the contrary, sovereignty would need to be EXPRESSLY relinquished; otherwise, it would be meaningless, as any conqueror could claim that any pesky trivial legal details were “settled by war.” This is a code of pure imperialism, which effectively supplants all concept of legal right altogether, with military might– via supplanting the pretext of original intent, with sheer brute force pragmatism and historical revision.﻿
NO sovereign nation EVER needs to expressly retain its sovereignty, since it cannot be lost by inference. If it could, then it couldn’t exist at ALL; since there is no supreme judge BETWEEN sovereign nations to review it; and therefore anyone could infer such a relinquishment, and might would make right. Therefore, sovereignty is absolute, and is only relinquished when the sovereign EXPRESSLY SAYS SO.

Even Akhil Reed Amar, the main proponent of the “Constitutional nation” theory, was at a loss to find examples of any such transactions; in his book “America’s Constitution,” he relates how Blackstones Commentaries “had noted that in the case of a nonconfederate, “incorporate union, such as the 1707 union of England and Scotland…that,…”The two contracting states are totally annihilated [qua sovereign states], without any power of revival; and a third arises from their conjunction, in which all the rights of sovereignty . . . must necessarily reside.”
However slight research will reveal that these two kingdoms were PREVIOUSLY a single country, sharing a single monarch since 1603; they merely became DIVIDED in 1707 under two crowns, and the “Treaty of Union” between them served to solve this crisis to RE-unite them under a single crown; in short, they didn’t want to be separate nations.

And accordingly, here is the relevant text from of the actual treaty:
“That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom”. That’s a clear, direct and express statement, since a king is a sovereign by definition.

In contrast, the Constitution does NOT say “the United States shall united into one state.” Not only DOES it NOT expressly conjoin sovereignty of the states; but furthermore, the Framers expressly held, that each state would remain individually sovereign– while the People of each state merely delegated authority to the federal government… and actual sovereignty itself remained vested them– certainly not in any government or elite individuals. The term “Union” certainly held no national context, for the “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union’ alone proved this.
Particular in regards to the Constitution, is Madison’s Federalist No. 39, where he writes that “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.”
This again, goes to Vattel’s defining a “federal republic” of sovereign nations, in which each remains “a perfect state.”

I read the Article myself then your comments, what did you mean by calling this Article false I mean you didn’t really discredit the Article you just said the same things as the Article while in the same breath calling the Article false, I don’t know what you mean?

No Rodney, Lincoln and his Northern cronies were in rebellion to the lawful authority of your U.S. CONstitution by violating the tenth amendment thereto. I challenge you to cite the article within your U.S. CONstitution, amendment thereto, or law that states that secession was or is unlawful or illegal. Absent a law making an act unlawful or illegal, then the act is perfectly lawful and legal. Secession was, nor is a traitorous act, but in fact was, and is a legal and lawful act. There was no use for the U.S. to hold a fort within the Confederate States of America, such would hold no benefit to the United States “interests” other than to promote hostilities. Likewise The Confederate
States holding a fort on Long Island would be of any benefit to the Confederate States of America other than to promote hostilities.
The cold hard fact that you must face is that secession was a lawful and legal act, and the only way for the U.S. to supply any of those “U.S. Forts” would require a peace treaty with the Confederate States of America to allow the U.S. to enter CSA jurisdiction for that purpose. The U.S. Soldiers were offered safe passage to leave the Fort, thus those U.S. troops could be well fed in the United States, while the U.S. began treaty negotiations to traverse South Carolina Confederate Jurisdiction in order to maintain that fort that was useless to the U.S. I feel certain that mutual agreement could have been established, such as a quarterly monetary fee, along with a customs inspection station to be certain that no weaponry cross South Carolina jurisdiction to the fort. The inhabitants of the fort could thus be protected by the Confederate States of America from foreign invasion.